Showing 165 posts from 2013.

Supreme Court: Proving Title VII Retaliation Claim Requires “But-For” Causation

June 25, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Adding to a recent string of victories for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 24, 2013, that claims for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved "according to traditional principles of but-for causation." More ›

Supreme Court Approves Class-Action Arbitration Waiver, Rejects Argument that Individuals Will Not Have Financial Incentive and Capacity to Prove Claims

June 21, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a significant victory for businesses and employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2013, that a class-action waiver in an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the costs of prosecuting the claim on an individual basis are financially impracticable. The majority based its ruling on two findings: first, that the federal statute at issue did not expressly override the FAA’s preference for enforcing private arbitration agreements as written and, second, that the financial burdens imposed on individual claimants did not require application of the “effective vindication” rule, which permits courts to invalidate arbitration agreements that prevent a party from effectively pursuing a remedy provided by federal law. More ›

Seventh Circuit: Employer’s Shifting Explanations for Termination Suggest Pregnancy Discrimination

June 13, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Employers take heed: in a decision issued earlier this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer’s varying explanations for terminating a pregnant employee indicated possible discrimination, even though the multiple explanations given were only slightly different. The case serves as a reminder that, when terminating an employee, absolute consistency is critical. By providing multiple reasons for a disciplinary decision — even multiple reasons that are almost the same — an employer would needlessly expose itself to discrimination claims. More ›

NY Court: Unpaid Interns Entitled to Protections of Labor Laws

June 12, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Production interns on the set of a blockbuster movie claimed that they should have been classified as employees, not unpaid interns, and filed suit against the production company. The interns did basic tasks such as answering phones, arranged travel, took lunch orders, and general office work. They claimed that the production company violated federal and New York state minimum wage laws by not paying them for their work. The interns ultimately moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether they were employees covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, and also sought class certification. The company also filed a motion for summary judgment and opposed the request for class certification. More ›

California Court: Arbitration Agreement does not Override Statutory PAGA Rights

June 10, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Non-exempt hourly auto workers filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of various wage and hour laws, and sought penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The employees had, however, executed the employer’s Employee Dispute Resolution Plan, which provides that all employment-related disputes must be submitted to mediation and arbitration. Employees waived any right they had to pursue, file, participate in, or be represented in disputes filed on a class basis or as a collective or representative action, and the agreement prohibited mediation or arbitration of disputes on a class basis or as a collective or representative action. More ›

Court Incorrectly Denies Employee Opportunity to Present Comparator Evidence

June 6, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A product engineer took an approved four-week leave of absence to visit family in Gaza, but upon return, security issues rendered it impossible for him to return to the United States prior to the end of his leave. His employer extended his leave for another 45 days. On the day he was scheduled to be terminated for failure to return to work, the employee sent an email to his supervisors advising that he was finally able to exit Israel and was trying to get a flight back to the United States.The employee returned to work roughly one week later and was informed that he had been terminated. More ›

Private Facebook Message not Concerted Activity Under NLRA

May 24, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In this case, an employer terminated a medical office worker based upon a private Facebook message she sent to nine other current and former employees. The message contained derogatory comments about the employer but focused on one supervisor and another returning supervisor she disliked. The employee also expressed a desire to be terminated. No one copied on the message responded directly to the message content at issue. Another employee who received the message gave it to the employer. The employer terminated the author of the message on the grounds that it was obvious the employee no longer wished to work there and disliked the employer and, given these feelings, the employer was concerned about the employee’s interactions with patients.  More ›

Sixth Circuit Upholds Michigan’s Public Act 53 Regulating Public School Union Dues

May 23, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Michigan's Public Act 53 prohibits public-school employers from providing payroll deductions to collect union membership dues from public-school employees. A group of union and union members challenged the Act facially, alleging that it violated their federal constitutional rights. More ›

California Court Decertifies wage, Break Claims due to lack of Commonality

May 22, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Home delivery newspaper carriers brought suit against the publisher for violations of the California Labor Code, arguing that they were not paid overtime wages, the proper minimum wage, and did not receive rest breaks, among other things. Specifically, the carriers claimed that they were improperly classified as independent contractors, though they were actually more akin to employees, and thus should have received the benefits of being an employee (such as receiving overtime wages). More ›

EEOC Alleges Employer Violated GINA by Requesting Family Medical Histories

May 20, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On May 16, 2013, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed an action against a nursing home and rehabilitation facility, claiming violations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC claims that, among other things, the employer required applicants and employees to provide genetic information in response to questions about family and medical history, and that the employer lacked the requisite workplace postings specifying workers’ rights under the Act. Specifically, the EEOC contends that prospective and current employees were required to undergo medical examinations in order to be deemed fit to work, and during those examinations, the employees were asked for family medical histories which were then used to make adverse employment decisions to their detriment.   More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives